"Supposedly a destroyer escort, the USS Eldridge, was fitted with the required equipment at the naval yards in Philadelphia. Testing began in the summer of 1943, and was successful to a limited degree. One test, on July 22, resulted in the Eldridge being rendered almost completely invisible, with some witnesses reporting a "greenish fog" in its place. However, crew members complained of severe nausea afterwards. At that point, the experiment was altered at the request of the Navy, with the new objective being invisible solely to radar. None of this has been substantiated.

The theory continues that the equipment was not properly re-calibrated, but in spite of this the experiment was performed again on October 28. This time, Eldridge not only became entirely invisible, but actually vanished from the area in a flash of blue light and teleported to Norfolk, Virginia over 200 hundred miles away. There it sat for some time in full view of men aboard the ship SS Furuseth, whereupon the Eldridge vanished from their sight and reappeared in Philadelphia at the site it had originally occupied, in an apparent case of accidental teleportation. It was also said that the boat traveled back in time for 10 seconds."

*************************************************

Facts supporting the notion that the Philadelphia Experiment did not include the elements above:

1) The logs from the Eldridge during this time period are available on microfilm NRS-1978-26 and do not confirm the above story [1].
2) The ship was not in Philadelphia at the alleged time of the incident [1].
3) The ship never made port in Philadelphia in 1943 [1].
4) Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, master of the Andrew Furuseth denies he or his crew saw anything unusual in Norfolk [1].
5) The Eldridge and the Furuseth were never in Norfolk at the same time [1].
6) "Bill Van Allen, 84, who was executive officer and then captain of the Eldridge in 1943 and 1944, said he never saw any sign of experiments aboard the ship" [2].
7) The story of the Eldridge is probably confused with that of the Engstrom, which underwent degaussing and retrofitting in 1943 [3]
8) The supposed green mist of the event is probably simply a case of St. Elmo's Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org...).

The culmination of these facts supports the conclusion that the Philadelphia Experiments were did not involve teleportation, invisibility, insanity, etc... related to the supposed synopsis of the Philadelphia Experiments. In fact, no records in the Naval Archives actually make mention of a procedure by this name, suggesting that the incident is entirely a hoax.

I will argue my position using direct evidence to prove that the Philadelphia Experiments were not a hoax and that various anomalies did occur.

Direct evidence is defined as "testimony/other proof which expressly or straight-forwardly proves the existence of a fact. Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption. It is evidence which comes from one who speaks directly of his or her own knowledge on the main or ultimate fact to be proved, or who saw or heard the factual matters which are the subject of the testimony." [1]

*Let me note that there is an experiment called the Montauk Project which is an extension of the Philadelphia Experiment.

I will use some of the following Philadelphia Experiment/Montauk survivors, witnesses, and scientists as direct evidence:

To affirm that the USS Eldridge was teleported, eye witness Carlos Allende confirms that the USS Eldridge was teleported from Philadelphia to Norfolk and back again in a matter of minutes. [2]

Another aspect of the Philadelphia Experiment was individual time travel. Survivor Al Bielek was a participant in a time travel experiment and was transported to the future. He suffered from brainwash which led him to believe his name was Al Bielek when his real name was Edward Cameron. His brother Duncan Cameron was also sent to the future by jumping off the ship when it was in hyperspace and was sent from 1943 to 1983 in Montauk, NY. [2] [3]

The Philadelphia Experiment was conducted in 1943 and the Montauk Project was conducted in 1983. This means that some of the time travelers of the Philadelphia Experiment were transported to 1983 during the Montauk Project.

Survivor Stewart Swerdlow was a victim of the Montauk Project who had his psionic abilities boosted, but as a result, suffered from post-traumatic stress disorders. [4] At Montauk, his memory was wiped, but the technology was flawed and his memory slowly returned. [3]

Swedlow said it was a horrifying experience, as did many other survivors. Some suffered from side effects of being frozen in time, traveling through hyperspace, and multidimensional travel. When a Deep Freeze (frozen in time) occurred, crew members would turn invisible and would be "stuck" for several days or even months and this lead to madness and insanity. Stewart Swerdlow said that denying the Montauk Project is like denying the Holocaust as only 1% of participants survived.

In conclusion, I have demonstrated that time travel, insanity, and teleportation did occur and that the Philadelphia Experiment was not a hoax based on the consistent survivor accounts of the event.

There are several problems with my opponent's rebuttal... let's begin with the simplest one:

>> "Direct evidence is evidence which, if believed, proves the existence of the fact in issue without inference or presumption."

This is the essential crux of the issue with Mr. Allende's testimony. Or should I say Mr. Allen's - it's hard to tell when someone takes a fake name and writes as poorly and rambling-ly as he does...

There are several reasons to not believe the testimony of Allende/Allen:

1) His testimony directly contradicts that of the captains of the Eldridge and the Furuseth. [1]
2) His testimony is incompatible with what we know of the science that would be involved in making something invisible. [2]
3) His testimony directly contradicts the microfilm recordings from the Eldridge. [1]
4) His testimony directly contradicts the testimony of crew members of the Eldridge. [4]
5) He was known for sending bizarre claims to family members on meaningless occasions. [3]

This page (http://www.bielek-debunked.com...) provides evidence that Cameron never existed and was in fact made up (an alias) by Bielek. "Larry James" - a pseudonym - claims to want to transfer his soul to another body, just as he claims was done with Cameron's soul... which proves "Larry" is lying as well.

Some facts:

1) Al Bielek (or Ed or Duncan Cameron) never served in the navy [1].
2) Bielek only developed a "passionate interest" in the Philadelphia Experiments in 1988 - after the movie came out [1].
3) Bielek claims his involvement in the Philadelphia was "blanked out" before 1988 - when the movie came out [1].
4) Bielek falsified information about "Dr. Kurtenauer" and probably did so about Nicholas Tesla [2].
5) Nichols' claims of time travel present continuity problems with the rest of Bielek's story [3].
6) Swerdlow claims to have been aboard the Eldridge as the SS officer Johannes Von Gruber - never happened [4].
7) Swerdlow's version of time travel and invisibility is incompatible with scientific knowledge and Allendle's testimony [2].

As you, the reader can see, there is ample evidence that this small collection of people is simply a group of liars seeking media attention.

The documented history of reputable witnesses and the official Naval records of the Eldridge contradict these "witnesses." If my opponent is operating under the umbrella of direct evidence, he must accept that the testimony of these characters is not believable. The testimony of the captains of the vessels involved and the crew of the Eldridge, however, IS.

Please also note that my opponent has not provided any sort of reconciliation between the following points from Round 1 and the version of the story espoused by his "witnesses" :

1) The logs from the Eldridge during this time period are available on microfilm NRS-1978-26 and do not confirm the above story [1].
2) The ship was not in Philadelphia at the alleged time of the incident [1].
3) The ship never made port in Philadelphia in 1943 [1].
4) Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, master of the Andrew Furuseth denies he or his crew saw anything unusual in Norfolk [1].
5) The Eldridge and the Furuseth were never in Norfolk at the same time [1].
6) "Bill Van Allen, 84, who was executive officer and then captain of the Eldridge in 1943 and 1944, said he never saw any sign of experiments aboard the ship" [2].

Sorry for the forfeit, but I was busy around the time it was due. Also, I think that 5 rounds is a bit much.

Now to negate my opponents argument.

>>There are several reasons to not believe the testimony of Allende/Allen:
1) His testimony directly contradicts that of the captains of the Eldridge and the Furuseth. [1]<<

This shows that there is an obvious cover up from the upper level participants. Also, I could flip the statement and say that the captains claim contradicts the testimony of Allende.

>>2) His testimony is incompatible with what we know of the science that would be involved in making something invisible. [2]<<

Just because the science behind invisibility isn't known to the general public, doesn't mean it isn't there. Einstein and Tesla were behind this; there obviously was some scientific basis. Not to mention, scientist Dr. James Corum, who later worked for the National Security Agency, examined the Philadelphia Experiment and came up with the following conclusion:

"The analysis would appear to lend credence to the hypothesis that something more than mythology is involved, and it renders plausible the conclusion that sufficient motivation exists to actually conduct a "Philadelphia Experiment" to examine radar stealth on ships with electric drives. Independent of whether our assumed values are practical or not, the analysis, which uses no phenomenology that wasn't known subsequent to 1938, would probably have brought WWII Naval investigators to the point of radar stealth experimentation. In fact, it would have been derelict behavior for the Defense Science Research Board not to have conducted such experiments if it were aware of the Phenomenology (as it must have been) in 1943." - Dr. James Corumhttp://www.bielek.com...

>>This page () provides evidence that Cameron never existed and was in fact made up (an alias) by Bielek. "Larry James" - a pseudonym - claims to want to transfer his soul to another body, just as he claims was done with Cameron's soul... which proves "Larry" is lying as well.<<

>>2) Bielek only developed a "passionate interest" in the Philadelphia Experiments in 1988 - after the movie came out [1].
3) Bielek claims his involvement in the Philadelphia was "blanked out" before 1988 - when the movie came out [1].
4) Bielek falsified information about "Dr. Kurtenauer" and probably did so about Nicholas Tesla [2].<<

You are providing nothing but theories and assumptions based on various coincidences.

>>6) Swerdlow claims to have been aboard the Eldridge as the SS officer Johannes Von Gruber - never happened [4].<<

Who better to verify this than the man who actually witnessed himself being aboard the ship. If Swerdlow said he was on board, he was on board.

>>7) Swerdlow's version of time travel and invisibility is incompatible with scientific knowledge<<

Refer to the videos explaining the science behind time travel and invisibility.

>>As you, the reader can see, there is ample evidence that this small collection of people is simply a group of liars seeking media attention.<<

Baseless assumption. Also, these people obviously didn't gain much attention, let alone mainstream media attention, otherwise people would know who they are. These people are not benefiting financially, nor are they getting media exposure. There is absolutely no motive whatsoever to lie about being a victim in a scientific experiment.

>>The documented history of reputable witnesses and the official Naval records of the Eldridge contradict these "witnesses." If my opponent is operating under the umbrella of direct evidence, he must accept that the testimony of these characters is not believable. The testimony of the captains of the vessels involved and the crew of the Eldridge, however, IS.<<

Again, this only points to a cover up, especially considering the lack of exposure this project has received.

>>Please also note that my opponent has not provided any sort of reconciliation between the following points from Round 1 and the version of the story espoused by his "witnesses" :

1) The logs from the Eldridge during this time period are available on microfilm NRS-1978-26 and do not confirm the above story [1].
2) The ship was not in Philadelphia at the alleged time of the incident [1].
3) The ship never made port in Philadelphia in 1943 [1].
4) Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, master of the Andrew Furuseth denies he or his crew saw anything unusual in Norfolk [1].
5) The Eldridge and the Furuseth were never in Norfolk at the same time [1].
6) "Bill Van Allen, 84, who was executive officer and then captain of the Eldridge in 1943 and 1944, said he never saw any sign of experiments aboard the ship" [2].<<

The following quote from researcher David Wilcock negates this:

"The most recent reports from Lt. Col. Philip Corso, reprinted on Dr. Steven Greer's CSETI website, indicate that almost everything in the description of the Philadelphia Experiment was true, except that in order to protect the story, a different ship was used than the one normally described to the public. The actual ship was a minesweeper, not a destroyer. Therefore, it makes sense that when aging crewmembers of the Destroyer Escort U.S.S. Eldridge were queried about this, they remembered nothing of the sort. Although the evidence now suggests that the Eldridge was not the ship, we are told that the experiment itself apparently did occur. What we are told is that this ship was made invisible and quickly transported by an extraordinarily powerful, pulsating magnetic field that it generated on board. This magnetic field was the product of several tons of specialized electronic equipment that had been installed within it." - David Wilcock

If you believe that the ship had remained in the harbor according to the Navy and no such experiment took place; then consider the following:
- Why were the families of several crewmembers being told that their relative sailors died that night?
- Why did the entire rest of the crew involved receive discharges from the Navy for being medically unfit?http://www.divinecosmos.com...

In conclusion, my opponent's main attempt to refute my position was to make the survivors look like lunatics seeking media attention. Of course though, there are multiple survivors and witnesses who have consistent and detailed accounts of the experiment, thus proving directly what had happened during the Philadelphia Experiment. Another premise my opponent put forth was that the Philadelphia Experiment contradicts known science, yet, the videos I provided demonstrate otherwise. We have successfully rendered objects invisible and teleported particles on a small scale.

I can go to Google and get a dozen pictures for Duncan Cameron. I can easily take a picture of someone else and label it Duncan Cameron. A quote from the site you didn't examine in the last round: "Since Bielek faked the evidence for the existence of Ed Cameron and subsequently there is also no evidence of a Duncan Cameron who lived during the same time period, then it can be safely said that the legend of the Cameron Brothers, Ed and Duncan is a fabrication..." Here is a page showing in great detail that neither Ed nor Duncan Cameron are in any way associated with the Philadelphia Experiments or Bielek: http://www.bielek-debunked.com...

>> "You are providing nothing but theories and assumptions based on various coincidences."

This statement, regarding the facts concerning the timelines of Bielek's statements, completely ignores the actual evidence itself, calling well-established facts coincidences. For example, Bielek states that he worked with Tesla, when in fact, Tesla was an extraordinarily weak old man, barely able to leave his house. But I suppose that was coincidence too.

>> "Who better to verify this than the man who actually witnessed himself being aboard the ship. If Swerdlow said he was on board, he was on board."

Yes, self-corroboration is the ultimate standard for proof. Hello? The fact of the matter is that neither Swerdlow nor his alias were on board the Eldridge. Please do some research and actually read the links.

>> "Again, this only points to a cover up, especially considering the lack of exposure this project has received."

The Philadelphia Experiments never received any attention because the title didn't exist until 1988... 45 years after the alleged events actually took place... when Bielek made up his story about suppressed memories.

>> "Although the evidence now suggests that the Eldridge was not the ship, we are told that the experiment itself apparently did occur...This magnetic field was the product of several tons of specialized electronic equipment that had been installed within it."

Could this be (GASP) the degaussing equipment installed on the Engstrom that I've been mentioning for three rounds now? The statement by Wilcock explains absolutely nothing concerning the following because it admits that the Eldridge wasn't even involved:

1) The logs from the Eldridge during this time period are available on microfilm NRS-1978-26 and do not confirm the above story [1].
2) The ship was not in Philadelphia at the alleged time of the incident [1].
3) The ship never made port in Philadelphia in 1943 [1].
4) Lieutenant Junior Grade William S. Dodge, master of the Andrew Furuseth denies he or his crew saw anything unusual in Norfolk [1].
5) The Eldridge and the Furuseth were never in Norfolk at the same time [1].
6) "Bill Van Allen, 84, who was executive officer and then captain of the Eldridge in 1943 and 1944, said he never saw any sign of experiments aboard the ship" [2].

>> "Also, these people obviously didn't gain much attention, let alone mainstream media attention, otherwise people would know who they are."

False: "According to his own records, Bielek has been on over 50 radio talk shows and a featured speaker at over 40 conferences." (http://www.bielek-debunked.com...)

Your first video is about microwaves, not visible light. They do mention visible light, but it is clear that nobody has bent visible light. And the technology to bend microwaves wasn't available in 1943... The second video mentions teleporting photons and atoms... not destroyers. And not in 1943. And time travel? According to your third video, it requires traveling around the universe, which must be rotating. Somehow I don't think they were doing that too often in 1943.

>> "I could flip the statement and say that the captains claim contradicts the testimony of Allende."

The statement of the captains of the ship is corroborated by their crews, etc... which were questioned individually. Allende's letters were sent with strange wordings and references, including the (unverified) claim that Allende, whose real name is Carl Allen, was individually tutored by Albert Einstein himself.

>> "Einstein and Tesla were behind this; there obviously was some scientific basis."

Appeal to authority fallacy. And also... do a Google search. You find anything in any scientific journal or source that backs up this claim?

Readers, my opponent has not presented any sort of evidence that Al Bielek or Carl Allen is a valid source. He has also provided no counter-evidence to the fact that Bielek has lied about almost every aspect of his stories regarding the Philadelphia Experiments.

I'm afraid this debate has turned into a he said / she said argument. I'm arguing that the survivors who were victims of the experiment testified that various advanced scientific experiments took place. He is citing captains who deny all of this. He's trying to make my direct sources look like attention seeking liars. Though one must ask, what would be the motive to lie about such a thing if no financial benefit is involved, and, if anything, damages your reputation. My opponent is citing captains who are making their own claims by denying it ever happened. In this case, lying makes sense as it is part of a government cover-up trying to keep the public ignorant of advanced technology. Also, sources say that the experiments took place because Einstein completed his Unified Field Theory, but Einstein contended that it would be used for purposes other than helping humanity and decided to conceal the theory. This would make absolute sense as to why the captains would lie.

My opponent also failed to explain the following vital questions concerning the experiment:

- Why were the families of several crewmembers being told that their relative sailors died that night?
- Why did the entire rest of the crew involved receive discharges from the Navy for being medically unfit?

These questions can be answered by simply accepting that the Philadelphia Experiments took place and that they were victims of the horrifying events. If not, my opponent must provide a valid answer to these questions.

>> "Though one must ask, what would be the motive to lie about such a thing if no financial benefit is involved, and, if anything, damages your reputation."

In a signed confession delivered in person to APRO Headquarters in Tuscon, AZ, the summer of 1969, Carlos/Carl Allende/Allen writes:

"All words, phrases, and sentences underlined on the following pages in brown ink are false. The below page and the top part of the following are the carzyist (sic) pack of lies I ever wrote. Object? To encourage ONR Research and to discourage Proffessor(sic) Morris K. Jessup from going further with investigations possibly leading to actual research. Then I feared invisibility and force-field research; I don't now."

This, of course, exposes the very root of the conspiracy as a simple lie.

>> "Why did the entire rest of the crew involved receive discharges from the Navy for being medically unfit?"

The interesting thing about this claim is that no site that makes it can provide verification for these discharges...

>> "Why were the families of several crewmembers being told that their relative sailors died that night?"

This claim is repeated on conspiracy sites in some form of "If the ship had simply remained safe and secure in the harbor as the Navy claimed, there is no apparent reason for the families of several crewmembers being told that their loved ones, the sailors from the crew, had died that night." However... no site actually has any sort of verification for this claim.

In both cases, a prima facia claim is made. In all instances of prima facia claims, they cannot be accepted without corroboration.

[according to himself] "...one of two sailors who fell through time from the 1940's to 1988... and alien technology was used by secret government agencies to erase [Ed Duncan] from his own time track and give him the body and background of Al Bielek."

Right. Because people really fall through time and have alien technology used to transport them into another body. Law of parsimony states that Bielek is lying.

***************************************************

Readers, as you can see, the debate is hardly a he-said / she-said sort of dialogue. It's more like He-said / Liars-say.

The evidence for the case that nothing unusual happened is here, well presented. My opponent references sources that simply make unverified, sensationalist, and obviously false claims.

>>Some quotes from still-living members of the USS Eldridge on 26 March, 1999:
Ed Wise: "I think it's somebody's pipe dream"
Ted Davis: "It never happened"
Bill Van Allen: "I have not the slightest idea how these stories got started"
Ray Perrino: "When people would ask me about it, I would play along with them and tell them I disappeared. After a while they realized I was pulling their legs"
Mike Perlstien: "I tell them I know nothing about it. I've seen the movie, and it's a good movie, but there's no truth to it"
(Philadelphia Inquirer)
As you can see, the crew of the Eldridge considers the whole notion of the Philadelphia experiment to be false and in some cases, even humorously so.<<

This has already been negated.

"The most recent reports from Lt. Col. Philip Corso, reprinted on Dr. Steven Greer's CSETI website, indicate that almost everything in the description of the Philadelphia Experiment was true, except that in order to protect the story, a different ship was used than the one normally described to the public. The actual ship was a minesweeper, not a destroyer. Therefore, it makes sense when aging crewmembers of the Destroyer Escort U.S.S. Eldridge were queried about this, they remembered nothing of the sort. Although the evidence now suggests that the Eldridge was not the ship, we are told that the experiment itself apparently did occur." - David Wilcock

>>[according to himself] "...one of two sailors who fell through time from the 1940's to 1988... and alien technology was used by secret government agencies to erase [Ed Duncan] from his own time track and give him the body and background of Al Bielek."

Right. Because people really fall through time and have alien technology used to transport them into another body. Law of parsimony states that Bielek is lying.<<

When you are traveling through hyperspace, it is rather likely that you might end up in a different time period because you are outside of space-time. Sources say that aliens provided the technology for the experiment, so it's no surprise that the aliens were there to help him switch bodies.

In conclusion, all my opponent had for evidence was crew members and captains who were not even aboard the actual ship that was used in the experiment. The Eldridge was not the ship used, it was a minesweeper, but the public is told it was the Eldridge to protect the story.

The proposition on offer is that the events known as the Philadelphia experiments included the disappearance, insanity, time travel, and/or teleporting of the USS Eldridge.

Pro: Burden is to show that the USS Eldridge either disappeared, went insane, traveled through time and/or teleported. Ships can not go insane, so Pro would have to prove one of the other points.

Con: Burden is to show that none of the above happened to the USS Eldridge.

Result: Pro conceded that while the experiment occurred, it did not on the USS Eldridge. Therefore the resolution is negated.

RFD: CON
(1) I had no opinion at the beginning. Tie.
(2) By the end I was convinced that if there was any experiment, then it wasn't on the Eldridge. Con.
(3) Red Forfeit = vote to Con.
(4) Tie on spelling/grammar.
(5) The arguments were both fairly compelling, but relative to the resolution, Con just came out ahead.
(6) I'll give this to Pro for only one reason: the video discussing our current teleportation capabilities is awesome, and is probably some of the best evidence for either side. Unfortunately, the rest of the evidence is weak at best. The claim of alien body switching is particularly ridiculous, although the teleporting video makes transmutational molecular reconstitution possible at least.

No, that's only part of the resolution. "The proposition on offer is that the events known as the Philadelphia experiments included the disappearance, insanity, time travel, AND/OR teleporting of the USS Eldridge"

The debate was about whether the Philadelphia Experiments took place, not whether the Eldridge was the ship or not. That's an insignificant detail.

He prolly means "Montauk Project" - well known for the Montauk Monster.

The conspiracy theorists love the Montauk Project because of Preson Nichols' "suppressed memories" of his involvement... meaning he found something interesting (1988 Philadelphia Experiments movie?) and made some stuff up.

since tarzan is baiting, I'll use the two words that I think he's refering to. Manhattan Project. It is clear that during world war II the united states was willing to test the boundries of science in order to defeat the Nazis. This does not claim that the experiments worked, only that it is entirely possible that they were attempted.

>> "If I were to reveal the secret to winning this argument in the comment section, it would ruin the debate. I guess I could accept it, but despite my confidence, I'm not ready to debate just quite yet."